National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney for president devotes little space to the virtues of their candidate and much space to a rationalization of their pick on conservative grounds. A bit defensive?

"Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything..." "It is true that [Romney] has reversed some of his positions..." "It is true that [Romney] has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain..." "Whatever the process by which [Romney] got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there..." The piece reads more of a defense of National Review's decision than an endorsement of Romney. It's an endorsement that enhances the conservative credibility of a non conservative at the expense of the conservative credibility of National Review.

Mitt Romney is not a conservative. He instituted a Hillaryesque health-care plan that subsidizes insurance companies for the costs of health costs of individuals making as much as $30,000 a year, mandates employers to provide health care to employees, and fines and penalizes individuals who, for whatever reason, choose no health insurance. It's socialistic, inimical to freedom, and a recipe for inflating health-care costs. Mitt Romney is not "a supporter of free-market economics," as National Review claims, because supporters of free-market economics don't mandate socialistic health-care schemes that burden taxpayers and employers. This is what the Republican Party unanimously fought against in the first years of the Clinton presidency. They now boast about accomplishing what Hillary Clinton couldn't accomplish. It's not just the party that has strayed. But house intellectual organs of the conservative movement seem tethered to few permanent principles too. It's later than you think.

Romney's credentials on social issues are at least as weak as his credentials on free-market economics. He supported the assault weapons ban. He bragged that his support for the pro-choice position antedated Roe v. Wade. And, yeah, the health care plan which he boasts about pays for abortions with taxdollars. He supported gay rights. Romney initially supported amnesty for illegal aliens. It was under his watch, and by the edict of judges appointed by his Massachusetts Republican Party, that the Bay State became the Gay State on marriage. As anyone living in Massachusetts can tell you, he did very little to uproot the judges' illegal decision.

Mitt Romney is a politician, not a conservative. I think that if he thinks pushing conservative policies will win him votes, he will do so. I know that if he thinks pushing liberal policies will win him votes, he will do so. I know this because this is what he did while serving as governor of Massachusetts.

"Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate," the editors of National Review write. Mitt Romney, running ahead in New Hampshire and a top-tier contender in other states, is certainly "viable." The problem is that he's not conservative. The greater problem than that is that a large number of conservatives now define "viable" in such a way as to exclude principled conservatives.

NR picking anyone other than Paul is a joke. I would say a disgrace but the magazine was already a total joke and at the forefront of destroying the authentic conservative movement in this country. I think that is as Buckley would have it anyway since he has spent the last couple decades more concerned about stooging for liberal Republicans (the Bush clan) and anathematizing conservatives like Buchanan w/ leftist smear tactics.

Ron Paul is a viable candidate. If these "conservative" luminaries think differently then they are either ignorant of how the primaries work (highly doubtful) or are simply uninterested in anything remotely like traditional American conservatism (clearly the case).

Cancel the NR subscriptions and get one to American Conservative or Chronicles.

Personally, I could never vote for someone who "used to be" pro-abortion, and "now" is pro-life (especially if the change was recent). I'm not saying that people can't make sincere changes in their beliefs. And if they do, great for them. But an issue like abortion is too serious to take any chances with. So I can't bet on a sincere change. I must vote for someone who's been a principled pro-life advocate from the beginning. Then I can be sure. So I'll be voting for Paul.

You are of course correct. And there is only so far that you can go with the defense of Romney that he had his hands tied by a state legislature dominated overwhelmingly with Democrat layabouts.

But at some point, principals need to shine through and I found he never took a tough enough stand on the RIGHT kind of principals when required. Does this say that he does not have the RIGHT kind of principals? It probably does. Or it might say a lot about maintaining the Governorship of a socialist state like Massachusetts. Either way, it’s mildly alarming.

Somebody asked me today who, honestly, I would want as President and I answered Romney. I know the guy is a Leftist and he countered with Obama. My contention was (and is) that Obama isn't experienced or qualified enough to which he responded that he really likes him because he's honest.

You know what? He is honest. You may not like his policies or politics but at least you know where he stands even if it’s a radically left stand. I don’t get that feeling from most of the other candidates and with Romney in particular.

ASDF,

I am not totally sold on the honesty of Obama. He certainly seems to have some core beliefs but he is generally so hazy in his speeches that he is clearly trying to run a campaign on platitudes. I am also convinced that he is likely a mildly depressed man close to consumed by his mixed racial heritage (see his first book). So I can't see him as the Dem version of an honest politician this go around. Richardson and even Biden probably fit that bill better. Of course the media won't allow them to be "viable" either, and so it goes, and so it goes.

Btw,

Romney has invested so much into winning Iowa and yet is currently trailing that I don't know if he can recover from a loss there. If that happens then what does that say about NR's decision to run this cover and endorsement? I find it terribly stupid of them. Why make that move right now? Another blog pointed out that this issue of NR will still be on the stands after the Jan. 3rd caucus and that could magnify it as a silly endorsement if he fails.

Well then, let me put it this way then: he's not a polished politician. Because (and I agree that he speaks in generalities and catch phrases most of the time) it appears that what you see is what you get.

The other more personal stuff, with regard to his blackness or whatever, I don't know. In that regard though, I do think he likely carries some baggage (his father was a skunk who left both he and his mother for greener pastures).

Anyway, I'm not advocating him as a viable candidate because I believe he would be a disaster. I'm just using him as an example of honesty in the sense that there's no mystery that he's a way left would be social engineer as juxtaposed to Mitt who touts himself as a conservative Republican and most times isn’t.